2020 CO 56
Colo.2020Background
- Division 3’s Measurement Rules (Rule 6.1) require certain well owners to file an annual Form 6.1 (reporting annual pumped amounts) by December 1 each irrigation year.
- Meagher owns three tributary groundwater wells in Conejos County that are subject to the Measurement Rules; Division engineers repeatedly ordered him to comply.
- Engineers sent Form 6.1 with a December 1, 2017 deadline; after Meagher failed to timely file, the Division Engineer issued a 10‑day Notice of Violation and Order to Comply; Meagher still did not comply.
- Engineers filed suit on March 16, 2018 seeking injunctive relief to prevent further violations, civil penalties (up to $500 per violation), and costs/attorney fees; Meagher ultimately submitted Form 6.1 on April 4, 2018 (99 days late).
- The water court denied Meagher’s motion to dismiss as moot, granted the Engineers’ summary judgment motion, entered a permanent injunction requiring timely annual filing, assessed $1,500 in civil penalties ($500 per well), and awarded costs and fees; Meagher appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of claims after late filing | Engineers: belated compliance does not moot request for injunction against further violations or claims for penalties | Meagher: submitting Form 6.1 mooted the case; dismissal required | Court: not moot — §37‑92‑503(6)(e) authorizes injunctions against "further violations," so prospective relief remains available |
| Need for culpable mental state for liability and penalties | Engineers: statute and Rule 6.1 impose reporting duty without scienter; no mental‑state element required | Meagher: summary judgment improper because genuine issue exists about his fault/culpability (reliance on well testers) | Court: no culpable‑mental‑state element in Rule 6.1 or §37‑92‑503(1)(a)/(6)(b); summary judgment proper because failure to file was undisputed |
| Form and scope of injunction; applicability of C.R.C.P. 65/Rathke factors | Engineers: statute supplies special enforcement scheme authorizing injunction tailored to prevent future violations; CRCP 65/Rathke do not apply | Meagher: injunction was an improper "obey‑the‑law" order and court failed to make CRCP 65/Rathke findings | Court: Kourlis controls — statutory scheme displaces Rathke/CRCP 65 here; injunction was sufficiently specific and properly tailored |
| Award of costs and appellate attorney fees | Engineers: prevailing under §37‑92‑503(6)(e) entitles them to costs and reasonable attorney fees, including appellate fees | Meagher: fees improper because subsection language limited to water‑court proceeding or related only to State Engineer orders | Court: §37‑92‑503(6)(e) authorizes costs and fees for the proceeding and includes appellate fees; remanded to determine amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Kourlis v. District Court, 930 P.2d 1329 (Colo. 1997) (special statutory enforcement schemes can supersede CRCP 65 and Rathke injunction requirements)
- Vaughn v. People ex rel. Simpson, 135 P.3d 721 (Colo. 2006) (statutory liability can attach for acts done with a person’s authorization; responsible for physical acts of others)
- Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 441 P.3d 1012 (Colo. 2019) (standard of review and rules for statutory interpretation and summary judgment)
- Rathke v. MacFarlane, 648 P.2d 648 (Colo. 1982) (Rathke factors for preliminary injunctions)
- Black Diamond Fund, LLLP v. Joseph, 211 P.3d 727 (Colo. App. 2009) (injunctive relief under statutory schemes does not necessarily require proof of scienter)
- Bethell v. Colo. Dep’t of Pub. Health & Env’t, 60 P.3d 779 (Colo. App. 2002) (affirming summary judgment assessing civil penalties where statutory requirements were undisputed)
- Hartman v. Freedman, 591 P.2d 1318 (Colo. 1979) (fee‑shifting statutes authorizing trial fees may also authorize reasonable appellate fees)